31–40 of 41 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did that change? I still see it mentioned. https://venturebeat.com/2018/02/11/nvidia-ceo-cryptocurrency... https://www.techradar.com/news/best-mining-gpu
Years ago. Your first link says crypto mining, not Bitcoin mining. Other coins with different mining algorithms to bitcoin.
There was an article written by a guy from the Larrabee team, where he explained how the projet wasn't a failure, in the sense that management wanted a processing beast and that's what they got, not a GPGPU. But what's interesting is that in the article, he said that the Intel GFX dep. were "begging to let them build a GPGPU", and he might have been exagerating but he made it seem like all they needed was to slap som…
There was an article written by a guy from the Larrabee team, where he explained how the projet wasn't a failure, in the sense that management wanted a processing beast and that's what they got, not a GPGPU. Great. Except the kind of parallel processing Larrabee was supposed to provide isn't something anyone wanted. It's a half-pregnant architecture. Not parallel enough to compete with GPUs, not enough single thread…
I'm surprised they don't make lossy GPUs that have a few defects among the obscene amount of transistors. Consumer graphics you wouldn't know the difference.
I assume you mean that each GPU gets a variable number of execution units, as opposed to code randomly failing depending on the core it gets run on.
You've just helped me realize that AMD and Nvidia overproduce every GPU and kill off the execution cores that don't work to reach the final fixed number (and that all GPUs probably have a few tens to hundreds of working cores that will never ever be used).
Unfortunately I don't think such variation would work, from a market standpoint: actually exposing the lossiness rating would devalue you as a manufacturer, solely because of the fact that the media would pounce on it like crazy, and even though said media would simply report what's there without putting malice in anyone's mouth, the fuss would mean naive users would go "wat", collectively conclude "well the number is smaller", interpret that to mean "vague less-iness", and bam, people don't think your product is as good.
Despite the fact that, for all intents and purposes (read: not mining), you are 100% right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Years ago. Your first link says crypto mining, not Bitcoin mining. Other coins with different mining algorithms to bitcoin.
So, I guess I mispoke and that’s what I meant. Does Intel want part of this market? Would it be lucrative to them?
The impression I get is that the only people taking cryptocurrencies seriously are managlement types who say "blockchain" in their sleep without having a clue what it means, obscure types with a few million invested, and the black market weaving in and out of the shadows.
There was an article written by a guy from the Larrabee team, where he explained how the projet wasn't a failure, in the sense that management wanted a processing beast and that's what they got, not a GPGPU. But what's interesting is that in the article, he said that the Intel GFX dep. were "begging to let them build a GPGPU", and he might have been exagerating but he made it seem like all they needed was to slap som…
There was an article written by a guy from the Larrabee team, where he explained how the projet wasn't a failure, in the sense that management wanted a processing beast and that's what they got, not a GPGPU. Great. Except the kind of parallel processing Larrabee was supposed to provide isn't something anyone wanted. It's a half-pregnant architecture. Not parallel enough to compete with GPUs, not enough single thread…
This was one of their previous attempts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel740 I hope these GPUs will be far better documented and have very good open-source drivers --- Intel has historically been much more open than ATI/AMD or nVidia at releasing public developer information.
I'm surprised they don't make lossy GPUs that have a few defects among the obscene amount of transistors. Consumer graphics you wouldn't know the difference.
There was an article written by a guy from the Larrabee team, where he explained how the projet wasn't a failure, in the sense that management wanted a processing beast and that's what they got, not a GPGPU. But what's interesting is that in the article, he said that the Intel GFX dep. were "begging to let them build a GPGPU", and he might have been exagerating but he made it seem like all they needed was to slap som…
While it's focused on ISPC (https://ispc.github.io) it does go into a lot of detail about what happened at Intel during the Larrabee & post Larrabee days.
I'm surprised they don't make lossy GPUs that have a few defects among the obscene amount of transistors. Consumer graphics you wouldn't know the difference.
I'm surprised they don't make lossy GPUs that have a few defects among the obscene amount of transistors. Consumer graphics you wouldn't know the difference.
Interesting idea. I assume you mean that each GPU gets a variable number of execution units, as opposed to code randomly failing depending on the core it gets run on. You've just helped me realize that AMD and Nvidia overproduce every GPU and kill off the execution cores that don't work to reach the final fixed number (and that all GPUs probably have a few tens to hundreds of working cores that will never ever be use…
That's basically the idea, but it's usually scaled down. A single GPU generation is essentially one chip design. If a single die has a defect in a particular unit, its turned/soldered off at the factory and sold as a lower end chip. Repeat until you have a chip that works. If you have a die where everything works, clock it up as much as you can, and ask a king's ransom for it.
The best exception is the PS3 "Cell" CPU.[0] It had an extra 'sacrificial' processing core.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)#Commerci...